It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
Just watched Dele Alli's social media post he's received a 1 game ban for. What on earth was wrong with it ? Looks miles ahead of the curve on mask wearing for one...
Its the zooming in on an Asian man implying a link which was racist and in poor taste. At the time there were racist attacks on those of Chinese etc ethnicity.
ok Well that makes a bit more sense - Had no idea the chap he was zooming in on was chinese with all the blurring.
Ah that makes more sense.
Yes it was undeniably racist and the only reason it didn't cause more of a stink I suspect is because racism against those of East Asian ethnicities isn't treated as being as serious as other forms of racism in this country.
Page 1 is telling Priti Patel that she can't claim to speak for everyone from a BAME background, which she can't.
Has she ever claimed to ? I don't think Labour MPs can speak for everyone from a BAME background either. I doubt very much the BAME residents on my parent's street voted for Sultana for instance.
I suggest the 'social' experience of educated, reasonably well-off Asians may be different from that of Afro-Caribbeans.
Extend that theory and no-one is entitled to speak for anyone.
Strangely, the authors of the letter haven't parsed themselves to check for their own privilege.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Have you tried water divination or casting the runes? Both are based on how people "feel" about things.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
No but @AlastairMeeks did go above the line with this header
Page 1 is telling Priti Patel that she can't claim to speak for everyone from a BAME background, which she can't.
Has she ever claimed to ? I don't think Labour MPs can speak for everyone from a BAME background either. I doubt very much the BAME residents on my parent's street voted for Sultana for instance.
I suggest the 'social' experience of educated, reasonably well-off Asians may be different from that of Afro-Caribbeans.
Naz Shah's status as a woman of Asian background does not give her the monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
Just watched Dele Alli's social media post he's received a 1 game ban for. What on earth was wrong with it ? Looks miles ahead of the curve on mask wearing for one...
Its the zooming in on an Asian man implying a link which was racist and in poor taste. At the time there were racist attacks on those of Chinese etc ethnicity.
ok Well that makes a bit more sense - Had no idea the chap he was zooming in on was chinese with all the blurring.
Ah that makes more sense.
Yes it was undeniably racist and the only reason it didn't cause more of a stink I suspect is because racism against those of East Asian ethnicities isn't treated as being as serious as other forms of racism in this country.
Indeed, the number of times I have heard the housing crisis blamed on "Rich Foreigners Buying All The Properties". Bit of an anthem from some parts of the Left.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
Alastair, they have done exactly what I have experienced as an Asian person all my life, that racism against Asians is somehow not as bad as racism against black people. This is literally the letter version of "yeah but someone calling you the p-word isn't as bad as someone calling a black person the n-word".
It's legitimately why I was not happy with Starmer singling out racism against black people yesterday and while I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there is no question that the Corbynite far left see Indians as a problem minority just as they do with Jews. I think you should reflect on just exactly what your supposedly supporting here before making broad brush statements about it.
Conclusions: DMB combination in older COVID-19 patients was associated with a significant reduction in proportion of patients with clinical deterioration requiring oxygen support and/or intensive care support. This study supports further larger randomized control trials to ascertain the full benefit of DMB in ameliorating COVID-19 severity.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
Alastair, they have done exactly what I have experienced as an Asian person all my life, that racism against Asians is somehow not as bad as racism against black people. This is literally the letter version of "yeah but someone calling you the p-word isn't as bad as someone calling a black person the n-word".
It's legitimately why I was not happy with Starmer singling out racism against black people yesterday and while I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there is no question that the Corbynite far left see Indians as a problem minority just as they do with Jews. I think you should reflect on just exactly what your supposedly supporting here before making broad brush statements about it.
I did not read the letter as saying what you think it says, but in deference to you I will as you ask reflect.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
It was a BLM march/protest.
Doesn't make idiot trouble-makers who jump on the bandwagon representative.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I'm unconvinced that Biden is a good choice for The Democrats. What strikes me about him is the phrase about young cardinals voting for old popes. At best he appears to be a one term President. It begs the question why didn't he secure Obama's backing as Presidential Candidate 4 years ago.
As for Trump, I wonder about his judgement, mental capacity and health, he became President, and it is not something for the US to celebrate. I hope he loses, and loses badly.
He lost in 2016, by almost 3 million votes! Only the fact of the crappy, antiquated Electoral Kindergarten saved him!
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I do enjoy the attempt by Dr Spyn to blame the Democrats for the policies of their party in 1865. It has a positively Northern Irish feel to it. "Remember the Battle of 1865!" would make very serviceable graffiti.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
Its true though isn't it? According to the reports that SAGE were still thinking of delaying lockdown and going down the Swedish route for at least another week before Cummings challenged them.
If its true that SAGE were thinking of waiting another week at least, then that could have led to 50,000 extra deaths could it not have?
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I'm unconvinced that Biden is a good choice for The Democrats. What strikes me about him is the phrase about young cardinals voting for old popes. At best he appears to be a one term President. It begs the question why didn't he secure Obama's backing as Presidential Candidate 4 years ago.
As for Trump, I wonder about his judgement, mental capacity and health, he became President, and it is not something for the US to celebrate. I hope he loses, and loses badly.
He lost in 2016, by almost 3 million votes! Only the fact of the crappy, antiquated Electoral Kindergarten saved him!
No, Hillary not campaigning in or winning States she took for granted saved him.
So, Baden Powell still very much hanging on in Poole then.
Quick stock take (like on Spoty) of Those We Have Lost -
Edward Colston. Robert Milligan.
Is that it? Just these 2 hardcore slaver ones? Plus HBO's Gone With The Wind is in for review, of course, but on the statues front?
I think we've had a good old British moral panic. If one of these statues had been moved to increase parking capacity I doubt anyone now complaining would give a fig.
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
Thompson might be right about Cummings effect on the SAGE team, we can't know I think. At what stage he pushed for lockdown is a bit of a he said/she said.
I private messaged you this on March 12th,
Pulpstar March 12 The behavioral science stuff could turn out to be too clever by half.
David Halpern isn't/wasn't just a talking head, he was one of the most influential people on the SAGE committee going by his qualifications and positon.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
It was a BLM march/protest.
Doesn't make idiot trouble-makers who jump on the bandwagon representative.
Im pretty sure those at the front giving the police most stick were BLM protestors.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I'm unconvinced that Biden is a good choice for The Democrats. What strikes me about him is the phrase about young cardinals voting for old popes. At best he appears to be a one term President. It begs the question why didn't he secure Obama's backing as Presidential Candidate 4 years ago.
As for Trump, I wonder about his judgement, mental capacity and health, he became President, and it is not something for the US to celebrate. I hope he loses, and loses badly.
He lost in 2016, by almost 3 million votes! Only the fact of the crappy, antiquated Electoral Kindergarten saved him!
No, Hillary not campaigning in or winning States she took for granted saved him.
Nah, it was the Electoral Kindergarten! Same was true of Dubya in 2000!
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
I thought he'd actually questioned the policy? Perhaps that was just spin.
I admit I was being a bit cheeky there, and agree that there were a lot of people worried at the time that the lockdown was too late. I'm sure the government was concerned too.
My assumption at the time was that the scientists had a lot more data than I did, they knew what they were doing, and the government was following their advice. Their advice was that everyone was going to get this, and the only thing that mattered was that everyone who was ill and could be treated beneficially should be.
The government (quite understandably) decided that going against their advisors was riskier politically than just following other countries.
I don't really blame them for that. They weren't entirely on their own, anyway. Sweden isn't exactly known for being a maverick country.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
I can identify one of two possibilities:
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
It was a BLM march/protest.
Doesn't make idiot trouble-makers who jump on the bandwagon representative.
Im pretty sure those at the front giving the police most stick were BLM protestors.
How do you discern the difference between BLM protestors and protestors who joined the BLM protest because they like protest and violence?
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
I'm not a Conservative poster but is anybody really abhorred by the BLM?
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
It was a BLM march/protest.
Doesn't make idiot trouble-makers who jump on the bandwagon representative.
Im pretty sure those at the front giving the police most stick were BLM protestors.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I'm unconvinced that Biden is a good choice for The Democrats. What strikes me about him is the phrase about young cardinals voting for old popes. At best he appears to be a one term President. It begs the question why didn't he secure Obama's backing as Presidential Candidate 4 years ago.
As for Trump, I wonder about his judgement, mental capacity and health, he became President, and it is not something for the US to celebrate. I hope he loses, and loses badly.
He lost in 2016, by almost 3 million votes! Only the fact of the crappy, antiquated Electoral Kindergarten saved him!
No, Hillary not campaigning in or winning States she took for granted saved him.
Nah, it was the Electoral Kindergarten! Same was true of Dubya in 2000!
Hillary deliberately ignored states she lost. She deserved to lose them and their electoral college votes. Trump didn't deserve to win, but Hillary did deserve to lose.
What we will never know is if she was so toxic that if she'd bothered to campaign there she might have lost by more.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
I can identify one of two possibilities:
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
It looks more like 2 to me.
God damn it, you've forced me to agree with you!
Edit: I still prefer my own invention, though: step forth, Sir Keira Knightly!
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I'm unconvinced that Biden is a good choice for The Democrats. What strikes me about him is the phrase about young cardinals voting for old popes. At best he appears to be a one term President. It begs the question why didn't he secure Obama's backing as Presidential Candidate 4 years ago.
As for Trump, I wonder about his judgement, mental capacity and health, he became President, and it is not something for the US to celebrate. I hope he loses, and loses badly.
He lost in 2016, by almost 3 million votes! Only the fact of the crappy, antiquated Electoral Kindergarten saved him!
No, Hillary not campaigning in or winning States she took for granted saved him.
Nah, it was the Electoral Kindergarten! Same was true of Dubya in 2000!
More like it was Clinton not customising her campaigning to the dangers of the Electoral College.
My assumption at the time was that the scientists had a lot more data than I did,
Almost certainly true. How useful that data was is doubtful. Most of it would have been noise and it was pretty clear at the time that the picture was very muddled.
It backs up MaxPB's point about left wingers particularly disliking ethnic minorities who don't conform to their idea of how they think they should behave, particularly in *needing* left wing politicians' help and intervention to be successful. They also dislike working class rich people, probably for the same reason.
That is less a point than a piece of stereotyping to support a jaundiced en bloc view of left wingers. It is in fact - if you think about it - doing something similar to what you accuse these left wingers themselves of doing.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Maybe, but I thought we were supposed to believe in experts? I might have run Navier-Stokes based models but I don't claim to know much about epidemiology (well, we all know a bit more now, but still).
Perhaps we ought to look at the IPCC whilst we are at this. There's a lot of money involved...
Starmer also covers the left-wing waterfront. The DNA of left ideas in his blood means that he can often sound like a greatest hits repertoire of what we remember about Labour leaders’ most successful tunes.
Like Clement Attlee, he is the quintessential radical in reassuringly middle-of-the-road clothes. Something in the structure of Starmer’s talk sounds like Hugh Gaitskell pressing home his case; he evokes Harold Wilson when he talks about party unity. Starmer recalls Neil Kinnock, moving away from a disastrous period of Labour self-indulgence and he has the intellectual sobriety and reassuring feel of John Smith in his bank manager phase. Overall, he is a bundle of sheer Labourness, the party’s contradictions and feelings in a single round lozenge of a sugar hit: one reason why members took to him so easily.
The letter to Priti, statuegate and Keir taking the knee really wont help Labour. They will never break through the 40% barrier if they continue to pursue identity politics as they did under Jezza.
One thing the Gov't did I think was look far too uncritically at the data coming out of China. All sorts of vested interests in dressing that up, and that was clear all along. Also easier to lock down when you're a totalitarian state.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
I can identify one of two possibilities:
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
It looks more like 2 to me.
Thanks. Keith is not a name I would choose, but neither is cringeworthy.
This whole name calling thing is something that they should have grown out of when their voice broke.*
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
This whole argument shows the problem with modelling hypotheticals. You can get whatever number you want in a reality that didn't happen.
And if you don't like your results, just tweak the assumptions.
99% of people will never notice, and the 1% who do won't be able to come up with anything demonstrably better.
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
Thompson might be right about Cummings effect on the SAGE team, we can't know I think. At what stage he pushed for lockdown is a bit of a he said/she said.
I private messaged you this on March 12th,
Pulpstar March 12 The behavioral science stuff could turn out to be too clever by half.
David Halpern isn't/wasn't just a talking head, he was one of the most influential people on the SAGE committee going by his qualifications and positon.
This is potentially part of the problem. People have their own expertise, which is natural. Ask an epidemiologist how to minimise deaths from an infectious disease and the obvious answer is full contact tracing and, if that fails, full lock-down (or, to be really sure, full lock down until you're certain the contact tracing is successful). However, you also need to talk to the behavioural scientists about whether that is feasible and how long for. Then you need to talk to the economists on the economic impacts. Then you, the politician, need to make the call. The epidemiologist can't say when to lock down because he/she doesn't have the expertise on the downsides of lock down, the economic effects. He/she can only say how many infections/deaths are likely under different conditions.
If you look at the 16 March Imperial paper it's mainly about load on the NHS and, to a lesser extent, about infections and deaths. That was the prime thing they were looking at. Someone else (I hope!) did the economics.
What we may see coming out of all this is a new discipline in pandemic management, which brings together the epidemiologists, behavioural scientists and economists into truly integrated teams, running integrated analyses that can give a full picture of the predicted consequences of different actions at different points. That would be a good thing.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
Those that do the equivalence thing are probably pro-Trump but too embarrassed to come right out and say it. And who can blame them?
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
I can identify one of two possibilities:
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
What's this thing of calling Keir Starmer 'Keith'? It's not as if he's hiding his real first name for whatever purpose (Gideon Osborne, Alexander Johnson etc.). I'm trying to understand the satire here.
I noticed PB Tories doing it, I can only assume that it's what passes for cutting edge humour in Tory circles.
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
But *why*? What is so funny about it or why is it demeaning?
I can identify one of two possibilities:
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
It looks more like 2 to me.
'Boring Keir' will suffice.
Taking the knee, my word what a clot
I don't see a difference between that and clapping for the NHS.
I'd do that in his situation. Boris should do it too.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
That is a heroic hot take, given that Britain already has one of the worst outcomes anywhere in the developed world.
Thompson might be right about Cummings effect on the SAGE team, we can't know I think. At what stage he pushed for lockdown is a bit of a he said/she said.
I private messaged you this on March 12th,
Pulpstar March 12 The behavioral science stuff could turn out to be too clever by half.
David Halpern isn't/wasn't just a talking head, he was one of the most influential people on the SAGE committee going by his qualifications and positon.
This is potentially part of the problem. People have their own expertise, which is natural. Ask an epidemiologist how to minimise deaths from an infectious disease and the obvious answer is full contact tracing and, if that fails, full lock-down (or, to be really sure, full lock down until you're certain the contact tracing is successful). However, you also need to talk to the behavioural scientists about whether that is feasible and how long for. Then you need to talk to the economists on the economic impacts. Then you, the politician, need to make the call. The epidemiologist can't say when to lock down because he/she doesn't have the expertise on the downsides of lock down, the economic effects. He/she can only say how many infections/deaths are likely under different conditions.
If you look at the 16 March Imperial paper it's mainly about load on the NHS and, to a lesser extent, about infections and deaths. That was the prime thing they were looking at. Someone else (I hope!) did the economics.
What we may see coming out of all this is a new discipline in pandemic management, which brings together the epidemiologists, behavioural scientists and economists into truly integrated teams, running integrated analyses that can give a full picture of the predicted consequences of different actions at different points. That would be a good thing.
Sure, @Edmudintokyo did point out that getting people to obey draconian rules was easier with a deadly pandemic on the rampage than it otherwise might be - something the behavioural scientists seem to have missed in early March.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
There was a documentary about three/four years ago - can`t remember what it was called - which involved cameras in parliament, following MPs about, inc JRM. MPs of all stripes said that they have stopped being rude about JRM because he`s so unremittingly courteous.
Correct, but begging the question to what extent the government was interrogating the advice to understand it. The answer seems to be: not much.
The irony is that the left erupted in outrage at the idea that Cummings was sitting on SAGE and saying it was thus "tainted" until it came out that Cummings was an early lockdown hawk and SAGE were otherwise wanting to avoid lockdown for longer with their Swedish-style herd immunity thinking.
Now a few weeks later the line is they didn't challenge the thinking enough.
One thing the Gov't did I think was look far too uncritically at the data coming out of China. All sorts of vested interests in dressing that up, and that was clear all along. Also easier to lock down when you're a totalitarian state.
I think there was a great deal of thinking that a lockdown could work in China but would never work here.
Conclusions: DMB combination in older COVID-19 patients was associated with a significant reduction in proportion of patients with clinical deterioration requiring oxygen support and/or intensive care support. This study supports further larger randomized control trials to ascertain the full benefit of DMB in ameliorating COVID-19 severity.
I don't understand why they've controlled for age and hypertension in separate models, rather than one single model. An obvious reason could be that the association becomes non-significant, p> 0.05 if you include both (I hope it's not that, that's basically fraud) or possibly that there's a lot of collinearity between age and hypertension (which seems plausible, but probably not to the extent there's no value putting both in the model and if so that should be explained). The careful wording does make me fear that the association simply disappears if both hypertension and age are controlled for.
Correct, but begging the question to what extent the government was interrogating the advice to understand it. The answer seems to be: not much.
The irony is that the left erupted in outrage at the idea that Cummings was sitting on SAGE and saying it was thus "tainted" until it came out that Cummings was an early lockdown hawk and SAGE were otherwise wanting to avoid lockdown for longer with their Swedish-style herd immunity thinking.
Now a few weeks later the line is they didn't challenge the thinking enough.
Check back Meeks' posts. He's been consistent on the line that the Gov't (Particularly Boris Johnson himself) didn't interrogate the scientists enough for ages.
So, Baden Powell still very much hanging on in Poole then.
Quick stock take (like on Spoty) of Those We Have Lost -
Edward Colston. Robert Milligan.
Is that it? Just these 2 hardcore slaver ones? Plus HBO's Gone With The Wind is in for review, of course, but on the statues front?
I think we've had a good old British moral panic. If one of these statues had been moved to increase parking capacity I doubt anyone now complaining would give a fig.
Well. I got a telling off on here for wanting a statue down at the main junction in my town cos it causes huge traffic snarl ups and pollution on the main street. Apparently, moving it to the park next door to provide a roundabout or extra lane for traffic was cultural vandalism of the highest order. No one's ever heard of the bloke btw.
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
Clinton would have looked like a poor president because we'd never have seen the counterfactual.
Well, she would have been a bad president. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. She hadn't really got what it took and most of her weaknesses were brutally exposed in her campaign.
But there's bad, and there's fucking catastrophic. The US rejected bad. But oh boy...
I sometimes wonder if I’m a classical liberal, libertarian or a bit of a secret radical.
However, I keep coming back to the fact I’m really a conservative. There are one-nation Conservatives like David Herdson and DavidL, liberal Conservatives like TSE and praetorian Thatcherites like HD2.
I am basically a shire Tory. It’s why I always had a soft spot for David Cameron, despite getting very frustrated with him at times.
I don't know if this helps but I can tell you that Toby Young self-identifies very strongly as a "classical liberal". Indeed it used to be the rather stark strap-line on his Twitter profile. Toby Young. Classical Liberal - Just that.
But not anymore. It now says "General Secretary of the Free Speech Union."
Which means he won't mind me saying all this. Or even if he does mind he would defend to the death my right to do so.
I’ve now joined the Free Speech Union after my experiences of the last week.
Fair enough. Although I have not noticed you struggling in this department. You always seem to speak your mind. Although of course only you can know if this is really true.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
Correct, but begging the question to what extent the government was interrogating the advice to understand it. The answer seems to be: not much.
The irony is that the left erupted in outrage at the idea that Cummings was sitting on SAGE and saying it was thus "tainted" until it came out that Cummings was an early lockdown hawk and SAGE were otherwise wanting to avoid lockdown for longer with their Swedish-style herd immunity thinking.
Now a few weeks later the line is they didn't challenge the thinking enough.
Check back Meeks' posts. He's been consistent on the line that the Gov't (Particularly Boris Johnson himself) didn't interrogate the scientists enough for ages.
Fair enough! Kudos to you on your consistency Mr Meeks.
I'm guessing you weren't one attacking Cummings for getting involved with Sage since him doing so is what you wanted him to do. My mistake, I apologise its easy to mix people up.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
Fat chance , he will still be the arsehole of arseholes
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
Fat chance , he will still be the arsehole of arseholes
Hi Malc.
I could have written your response but it does not address the substance of the comment
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
It is that kind of attitude which leads to the deep partisan divides in politics, in the 1950s and 1960s plenty of Labour and Tory MPs were friends despite political differences and had often been in the forces in the war together
Starmer also covers the left-wing waterfront. The DNA of left ideas in his blood means that he can often sound like a greatest hits repertoire of what we remember about Labour leaders’ most successful tunes.
Like Clement Attlee, he is the quintessential radical in reassuringly middle-of-the-road clothes. Something in the structure of Starmer’s talk sounds like Hugh Gaitskell pressing home his case; he evokes Harold Wilson when he talks about party unity. Starmer recalls Neil Kinnock, moving away from a disastrous period of Labour self-indulgence and he has the intellectual sobriety and reassuring feel of John Smith in his bank manager phase. Overall, he is a bundle of sheer Labourness, the party’s contradictions and feelings in a single round lozenge of a sugar hit: one reason why members took to him so easily.
While an interesting parallel, it is worth pointing out that only two of those leaders actually won elections. And one of them won his first election under highly unusual circumstances.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
But I was misjudging you!
LOL I was thinking the same thing!
Snap. For a moment, I even thought the post was by @ydoethur ...
Unless I misunderstood Hancock has just said that the ONS surveillance suggests that 70-80% of people infected are asymptomatic.
Do they distinguish between asymptomatic and presymptomatic ?
I think he was talking about the antibody testing, so presumably most of those presymptomatic people would have gone on to develop symptoms before they are picked up in antibody testing.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
But I was misjudging you!
LOL I was thinking the same thing!
Snap. For a moment, I even thought the post was by @ydoethur ...
That loud bang you heard was The Last Boy Scout hurtling down to Poole to throw himself at Baden-Powell's statue so he would take it out in his explosion of wrath...
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Have you tried water divination or casting the runes? Both are based on how people "feel" about things.
Do you never get an impression of what a famous person is like based on what you see and hear from them on various media outlets?
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I do enjoy the attempt by Dr Spyn to blame the Democrats for the policies of their party in 1865. It has a positively Northern Irish feel to it. "Remember the Battle of 1865!" would make very serviceable graffiti.
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
It is that kind of attitude which leads to the deep partisan divides in politics, in the 1950s and 1960s plenty of Labour and Tory MPs were friends despite political differences and had often been in the forces in the war together
Are there still not a few about? I remember hearing the 2 who fought Stroud 5 times interviewed. They got on really well and co-operated on case work even as they plotted to take each other's job.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
It is that kind of attitude which leads to the deep partisan divides in politics, in the 1950s and 1960s plenty of Labour and Tory MPs were friends despite political differences and had often been in the forces in the war together
Are there still not a few about? I remember hearing the 2 who fought Stroud 5 times interviewed. They got on really well and co-operated on case work even as they plotted to take each other's job.
I'm trying to remember one - a classic hard-leftie turned up and gave a very moving speech at his favourite opponents funeral. 50 years of being frenemies or some such.
I sometimes wonder if I’m a classical liberal, libertarian or a bit of a secret radical.
However, I keep coming back to the fact I’m really a conservative. There are one-nation Conservatives like David Herdson and DavidL, liberal Conservatives like TSE and praetorian Thatcherites like HD2.
I am basically a shire Tory. It’s why I always had a soft spot for David Cameron, despite getting very frustrated with him at times.
I don't know if this helps but I can tell you that Toby Young self-identifies very strongly as a "classical liberal". Indeed it used to be the rather stark strap-line on his Twitter profile. Toby Young. Classical Liberal - Just that.
But not anymore. It now says "General Secretary of the Free Speech Union."
Which means he won't mind me saying all this. Or even if he does mind he would defend to the death my right to do so.
I’ve now joined the Free Speech Union after my experiences of the last week.
It would be more honest for it to rename itself Privileged Lives Matter.
Have you seen the website or read its values?
It defends people like Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer who were "no platformed" for their views.
Comments
I find a lot of the bandwagon jumping irritating but I'm not upset by people who feel genuinely aggrieved.
I find throwing objects at police horses abhorrent but I don't believe that was in the name of BLM
Yes it was undeniably racist and the only reason it didn't cause more of a stink I suspect is because racism against those of East Asian ethnicities isn't treated as being as serious as other forms of racism in this country.
Strangely, the authors of the letter haven't parsed themselves to check for their own privilege.
Or maybe they forgot to include that bit.
Quick stock take (like on Spoty) of Those We Have Lost -
Edward Colston. Robert Milligan.
Is that it? Just these 2 hardcore slaver ones? Plus HBO's Gone With The Wind is in for review, of course, but on the statues front?
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/15/herd-immunity-the-big-political-risk-the-government-is-running/
Personally I was in disbelief that herd immunity could ever be countenanced.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1238097745971421184
There are reviews right now in Leeds, Huddersfield, and London (and probably elsewhere) about removing statues and the like.
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
It's legitimately why I was not happy with Starmer singling out racism against black people yesterday and while I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there is no question that the Corbynite far left see Indians as a problem minority just as they do with Jews. I think you should reflect on just exactly what your supposedly supporting here before making broad brush statements about it.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.20112334v2
(DMB = Vitamin D, Magnesium & Vitamin B-12)
Perhaps we should try and get into the spirit of it and start calling Boris Doris.
If its true that SAGE were thinking of waiting another week at least, then that could have led to 50,000 extra deaths could it not have?
I private messaged you this on March 12th,
Pulpstar March 12
The behavioral science stuff could turn out to be too clever by half.
Didn't actually realise this video was out at the time.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1238097745971421184
David Halpern isn't/wasn't just a talking head, he was one of the most influential people on the SAGE committee going by his qualifications and positon.
I admit I was being a bit cheeky there, and agree that there were a lot of people worried at the time that the lockdown was too late. I'm sure the government was concerned too.
My assumption at the time was that the scientists had a lot more data than I did, they knew what they were doing, and the government was following their advice. Their advice was that everyone was going to get this, and the only thing that mattered was that everyone who was ill and could be treated beneficially should be.
The government (quite understandably) decided that going against their advisors was riskier politically than just following other countries.
I don't really blame them for that. They weren't entirely on their own, anyway. Sweden isn't exactly known for being a maverick country.
1) It's an incredibly subtle reference to Spitting Image's "The Chicken Song", where they are pretending his name is Keith.
or
2) They think that Keith is a hilariously naff name that no serious politician could have, so by using it they're imagining him as a chavvy loser.
It looks more like 2 to me.
What we will never know is if she was so toxic that if she'd bothered to campaign there she might have lost by more.
Edit: I still prefer my own invention, though: step forth, Sir Keira Knightly!
Perhaps we ought to look at the IPCC whilst we are at this. There's a lot of money involved...
Starmer also covers the left-wing waterfront. The DNA of left ideas in his blood means that he can often sound like a greatest hits repertoire of what we remember about Labour leaders’ most successful tunes.
Like Clement Attlee, he is the quintessential radical in reassuringly middle-of-the-road clothes. Something in the structure of Starmer’s talk sounds like Hugh Gaitskell pressing home his case; he evokes Harold Wilson when he talks about party unity. Starmer recalls Neil Kinnock, moving away from a disastrous period of Labour self-indulgence and he has the intellectual sobriety and reassuring feel of John Smith in his bank manager phase. Overall, he is a bundle of sheer Labourness, the party’s contradictions and feelings in a single round lozenge of a sugar hit: one reason why members took to him so easily.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-labour-leader
The letter to Priti, statuegate and Keir taking the knee really wont help Labour. They will never break through the 40% barrier if they continue to pursue identity politics as they did under Jezza.
This whole name calling thing is something that they should have grown out of when their voice broke.*
*Not sexist, as women's voices break too.
And if you don't like your results, just tweak the assumptions.
99% of people will never notice, and the 1% who do won't be able to come up with anything demonstrably better.
If you look at the 16 March Imperial paper it's mainly about load on the NHS and, to a lesser extent, about infections and deaths. That was the prime thing they were looking at. Someone else (I hope!) did the economics.
What we may see coming out of all this is a new discipline in pandemic management, which brings together the epidemiologists, behavioural scientists and economists into truly integrated teams, running integrated analyses that can give a full picture of the predicted consequences of different actions at different points. That would be a good thing.
Taking the knee, my word what a clot
I'd do that in his situation. Boris should do it too.
Now a few weeks later the line is they didn't challenge the thinking enough.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-11/schools-open-pubs-open-welcome-to-guernsey/
Apparently, moving it to the park next door to provide a roundabout or extra lane for traffic was cultural vandalism of the highest order.
No one's ever heard of the bloke btw.
But there's bad, and there's fucking catastrophic. The US rejected bad. But oh boy...
But I was misjudging you!
I'm guessing you weren't one attacking Cummings for getting involved with Sage since him doing so is what you wanted him to do. My mistake, I apologise its easy to mix people up.
I could have written your response but it does not address the substance of the comment
For a moment, I even thought the post was by @ydoethur ...
Starmer is going to have a real problem with the remnants of the Corbynista's in his party
They got on really well and co-operated on case work even as they plotted to take each other's job.
But as of right now I'm not seeing an attack by superwoke devils on the very fabric of our great nation.
Don't get me wrong, it might be happening, but I'm not as yet seeing it.
It defends people like Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer who were "no platformed" for their views.
Your caricature of it is unfair.
Will be noticed among the faithful, the MPs and the voters.